On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Escape Landsome= <escaaape@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can think of no case where "very different co= ncepts are given very near
> phonological forms". It is true that there are many cmavo which a= re very
> nearly the same, such as FA, SE, etc., but all of these groupings are = very
> closely related to each other, differing in very minor ways.
>
> Your own example of the so'V series is not nearly as "differe= nt" as you seem
> to think. Each of them is a point on the scale All-None, exclusive. Th= e only
> difference is where on that scale each is, with so'a being closest= to All,
> and so'u closest to None.

The paradigm is the same (all so'V are related to scale All-None)= but
inside this paradigmatic choice, they are very distinct.

All is not at all the same thing as None or as Few, and if somebody is
not well heard when saying the word, the consequences are great !

As if I said [ x =3D 0% ], [ x =3D 10% ], [ x =3D 100% ], and all the onus<= br> of communication lied on the real variable near the percent sign...
Communication would be in great risk to be lost.

In the case of natlang some redundancy is set to avoid this, namely
the "f-" or "few" opposes the "n-" of "n= one", but also "-ew" of "few"
opposes "-one" of "none", so that, if ever one phonem i= s not well
understood, the other ones are there to save the day.

=
Except that is not the case.

Which of the following cases of lis= tener mishearing would you consider to be of greater consequence?

"I have two sheep because I'm tired."

{lonu lo cit= ri cu na morji piso'uroi cu gasnu lonu lo citri cu rapli}

>> And : << Does not the fact natlangs do not have this problem= generally
>> speaking imply that they are more well designed than lojban on thi= s
>> particular point ? >>
>
>
> I don't think so, mainly because, being NATlangs, they weren't= designed at
> all. I highly doubt that the phonological properties of words were eve= r
> taken into account during the etymological evolution of those language= s. In
> fact, there is ample evidence to the contrary, as there are many cases= where
> words that are /extremely/ different concepts have /extremely/ similar=
> phonotactics, such as the English to, too, and two. I would argue that=
> mistaking, for example, "bow" (either the act-of or the ship= -part, but not
> the clothing) and "now", or "to" and "too&quo= t; is much more damaging to listener
> comprehension than mistaking "so'a" for "so'u&q= uot;.

Natlangs were designed, but the designer is a non-human (and
non-divine) random process of natural selection. =A0 Natural selection
favorises random creations, but random creations naturally occupy the
phonological space smoothly and in a sparse way, so one can say,
natural selection naturally designs words that are good for efficient
communication.